On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 11:35:01AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 8:18 AM Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 02:40:18PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > > Convert the vendor prefix registry to a schema. This will enable checking > > > that new vendor prefixes are added (in addition to the less than perfect > > > checkpatch.pl check) and will also check against adding other prefixes > > > which are not vendors. > > > > > > Converted vendor-prefixes.txt using the following sed script: > > > > > > sed -e 's/\([a-zA-Z0-9\-]*\)[[:space:]]*\([a-zA-Z0-9].*\)/ "^\1,\.\*\":\n description: \2/' > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > As vendor prefix updates come in via multiple trees, I plan to merge > > > this before -rc1 to avoid cross tree conflicts. > > > > I just tried this with the 5.2-rc1 release, and this very > > significantly slows down the validation. > > > > With a dtbs_check run on (arm's) sunxi_defconfig, on my core-i5 with 4 > > threads, I go from 1.30 minutes to more than 12. > > Indeed. 6 min to 45 min for allmodconfig. However, it's only 5 min to > run checks with only this file. I'd expect a more linear hit. Maybe > we're exceeding some cache size and thrashing. > > > Should we improve the dt-validate tool before merging this patch? > > How? I've looked at optimizing things some and implemented areas I > found (primarily, saving the fixed-up schema and not printing line > numbers (of the yaml encoded DT)). I guess we can always try to profile the dt-validate tool to see where the bottleneck is. Another area of improvement might be to use a faster language. Rust's regex engine is known to be blazing fast for example. However, it's a pretty exotic language, and it would probably hurt the maintainability. Maybe go would be a good in-between? > I've been wanting to have some way to categorize checks, so we can > split rules from pedantic guidance. Maybe we can add a level keyword > in select or something. That would be a good mitigation indeed. > Short term, I'm fine with just disabling this one by default with > 'select: false'. Ok. Do you want to send it or should I do it? Thanks! Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
